Isn't chromium-browser opensource?
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
On script trisquelize.sh from https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/migrate-ubuntu-trisquel-without-reinstalling , I noticed that it ask for removal of non-free packages installed. where `chromium-browser` is also listed inside script as follows:
echo -------------------------------------------
echo All Trisquel packages succesfully installed.
echo Your system may still have some non-free packages installed,
echo I\'ll now ask you for removal, one by one.
for i in aee afio app-install-data-commercial app-install-data-partner app-install-data-ubuntu b43-fwcutter capiutils chromium-browser chromium-browser-dbg chromium-browser-inspector chromium-browser-l10n chromium-codecs-ffmpeg chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-dbg chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra-dbg chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-dbg d4x-common envyng-core envyng-gtk envyng-qt fglrx-modaliases firefox-3.5-branding firefox-branding freesci freesci-doc gstreamer0.10-pitfdll helix-player ipppd isdnactivecards isdneurofile isdnlog isdnlog-data isdnutils isdnutils-base isdnutils-doc isdnutils-xtools isdnvbox isdnvboxclient isdnvboxserver ivman jockey jockey-common jockey-gtk jockey-kde libmoon libmoonlight-desktop2.0-cil-dev libmoonlight-gtk3.0-cil libmoonlight-system-windows-controls2.0-cil libmoonlight-system-windows3.0-cil libmoonlight-windows-desktop3.0-cil libubuntuone libubuntuone-1.0-1 libubuntuone-dev libubuntuone1.0-cil libubuntuone1.0-cil-dev monodoc-moonlight-manual moon moonlight-plugin-core moonlight-plugin-mozilla moonlight-tools moonlight-web-devel mozilla-helix-player ndisgtk ndiswrapper ndiswrapper-common ndiswrapper-utils-1.9 nvidia-173-modaliases nvidia-180-modaliases nvidia-185-modaliases nvidia-96-modaliases nvidia-common nvidia-current-modaliases nvidia-settings ophcrack ophcrack-cli pdftk pppdcapiplugin rman scribus-ng-doc scsi-firmware linux-firmware software-center tatan ubufox ubuntuone-client ubuntuone-client-gnome ubuntuone-client-tools ubuntuone-storage-protocol user-mode-linux vrms
Then I visited http://www.chromium.org/Home and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser) which says:
>Chromium is the open-source web browser project from which Google Chrome draws its source code
So my question is if `chromium-browser` is free (in sense of 'freedom' or opensource) or not & why this script ask to remove it?
I think it has something to do with Chromium licenses.
Some licences (like Ms-PL or MPL) are GPL-Incompatible, according to FSF :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
Furthermore, Chromium code includes unlicensed files i.e. nonfree.
GPL incompatible licenses are not a problem here as long as they still are free software licenses.
(Generally of course GPL incompatibility is a bad idea it being the most used free software license and all.)
Indeed. You're definitely right on that point.
However, as I also mentioned, Chromium code includes unlicensed files, that is to say nonfree files. This might be the important part regarding the reason why chromium-browser is being removed by the trisquelize.sh script.
It is the fundamental issue: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28291
There is a feature request in the Trisquel issue tracker:
https://trisquel.info/en/issues/4353
Andrew
I am a translator!
If you really care about sofware freedom and value your privacy I'd like to suggest you not to use anything made by google...
What, like the Droid fonts, which are under the Apache License and included in Trisquel by default?
Take off your tinfoil hat. Being made by Google isn't a problem. Not being possible to exercise one of the four freedoms is.
What about the V8 JavaScript engine that powers Node.js? How about the SPDY protocol? AngularJS? The Go programming language? Tesseract? You also must have forgotten about the VP8 and VP9 codecs in WebM.
Most quality FLOSS software is backed by a corporation or successful non-profit. Deal with it.
Chromium is free software and shouldn't be blacklisted in Trisquel.
It is "Open Source" but not "Free Software", the main difference being it suggests non-free plugins and includes many anti-features. I actually had wanted Google Chrome and/or Chromium myself when I first switched to GNU/Linux.
Whereas it would be possible to do, large amounts of code would need to be reviewed and removed.
FYI - Free vs. OpenSource: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
Lintian Report also exposed several licensing violations:
http://tinyurl.com/lintianchromereport
And here's a few anti-features -
* Installation-ID - A copy of Google Chrome includes a generated installation number which will be sent to Google after the installation and the first usage. It gets deleted when Chrome checks first time for updates.If Chrome is received as part of a promotional campaign, it may generate a unique promotion number which is sent to Google on the first run and first use of Google Chrome.
* Suggestions - Depending on the configuration, each time you put something in the address line,this information is sent to Google to provide suggestions.
* Error Pages - Depending on the configuration, if you have typed a false address in the adress bar, this is sent to Google and you get an error message from Google's servers.
* Error Reporting - Depending on the configuration, details about crashes or failures are sent Google's servers.
* RLZ Tracking - This Chrome-function transmits information in encoded form to Google, for example, when and where Chrome has been downloaded.
* Google Updater - Chrome installs a updater, which loads at every Windows in background.
* URL-Tracker - Calls depending on the configuration five seconds after launch the Google homepage opens in background
* non-Free Adobe Flash plugin
For those reasons and more, I don't think including Chromium would be a good idea. Now if someone wants to take on Chromium-Libre and patch it, I would be interested. :)
G4JC,
The bullet points you provided are for the standard Chrome and not all of them apply to Chromium. For example:
* Installation-ID - Doesn't exist in Chromium
* Suggestions - In both Chrome and Chromium. This can be disabled in the settings or disabled entirely if Chromium source code is modified.
* Error Pages - (same as Suggestions)
* Error Reporting - (same as Suggestions and Error Pages). Doesn't Abrowser/Firefox contact Mozilla with crashes?
* RLZ Tracking - Doesn't exist in Chromium.
* Google Updater - Doesn't exist in Chromium.
* URL-Tracker - Does this happen if you set your home page and/or search to another one like Startpage or DuckDuckGo?
* Flash plugin - Not included with Chromium.
I am a translator!
ponpon4 - seriously? tinfoil hat? is that supposed to be funny? So original you are..
google is by far the worst company on internet as far as privacy is concerned. That is a fact. I avoid google products and don't have any respect nor trust in anything google does. We are talking about an omnipresent company that makes 90% of its huge multi-billion earnings by collecting and selling your (generic your) data.
But you can study and change what libre programs do. That's a fact. You don't have to "trust" a libre program. If a program is libre, and doesn't do anything malicious, there is absolutely no reason to avoid using it. It doesn't matter how evil the developer is if you can tell, because you have the source code, that the program doesn't do anything evil.
If you truly feel that simply being made by Google makes a libre program dangerous, go ahead and purge all the Google fonts on your system, and probably Linux as well, since I'm pretty sure Google has contributed to that.
Same goes with Facebook and the btrfs filesystem. Many major improvements have been made to it in the newer kernels as FB has someone on staff who works on btrfs and pushes code to the main kernel.
If google made a great free operating system i would definitly use it, and the fact that it's made by google wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
Apple is at least as bad as Google, and Trisquel includes some Apple software (Cups and Webkit). And the iThings[1] are much worse than most Android devices[2] and most Macs.
It is also possible to install a free BIOS on some old Macs[3,4].
Using Apple or Google software is not a problem as long it is free. As a GNUstep developer I use some more Apple software that Apple released as free software. Apple uses the Apache 2 licence for its newer free programs, which is GPL compatible.
[1] https://stallman.org/apple.html
[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html
[3] http://i.imgur.com/ZAQfmjr.jpg
[4] http://www.libreboot.org/docs/hcl/index.html#supported_list
I am a translator!
Apple, google and even microsoft along with many other big players have all contributed to the linux kernel. That is a fact. Fortunately we are talking about open-source code that can be and is being constantly reviewed by the comunity.
Don't get me wrong onpon4 - what I'm saying is - I don't like any kind of privacy abuse and I value my privacy very much - hence I don't like google (nor apple or microsoft). These companies are very well known for privacy abuses. Anyway I wouldn't use chrome or chromium, for those browsers constantly call home to google servers!!
http://thesimplecomputer.info/the-private-life-of-chromium-browsers
See this article, in particular the "the sniff test" part. And if you don't beleive that is true do the test on your own.. And remember - There is no freedom without privacy!
ciaouu
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires